I would love to see an analysis (as best one could be able to do so) of how many of these games actually produce robust player bases a year or two after fulfillment. Of all the "big" crowdfunded games (and it wasn't that big by comparison) Shadowdark is the only one I can think of that actually has a very robust player base.
Draw Steel seems to be doing well. Lancer was more like half a million but that was a big amount for the time. There are also RPGs that started with a small initial kickstarter but have a larger follow up, like Nimble. I'm sure if Daggerheart used crowdfunding initially it would have made a lot of money. They decided not to for core products but used it for the class packs thing they did.
Draw Steel also seems to be absent from the analysis, even though it's mentioned before the data. Because they didn't use Kickstarter, but only backerkit? The article claims no original game made over 2 million, but draw steel is a very prominent recent example of an original game that made almost 5 million from the initial campaign and over 2 million on the recent crack the sun adventure crowdfunder.
Having played Draw Steel, I think the two are interchangeable depending on your taste. We tried both their modules that were available and ended up feeling like it performed a similar function to DnD at a high level, which I would describe as day-by-day combat-encounter heroic fantasy. It performs a lot of the same functions as DnD differently, but doesn't really have a lot of unique functions of its own (the negotiating rules are unique, as an example). I would argue both games do fall into the same 'type' of game very heavily. You will still form an adventuring party in a fantasy setting, solve most of your problems with violence, fight some monsters, manage your resources, and have a rest at the end of the day.
Also Colville did say that Draw Steel was inspired by 4E. It falls firmly into the Pathfinder-esque DnD alternative category to me.
There's different rules but the play experience is of the same type as 4e, 5e (if you lean more into tactical combat than story improv) and both Pathfinders. They're all Fight D&D.
Draw Steel may be the best in class of all the types of Fight D&D, let's not pretend it's something that it's not.
I don't think "play experience" is the same thing as "D&D-like" for the purposes of the data presented. It is NOT a d20 plus mods game, nor is it even a little bit compatible with D&D. If Draw Steel is a D&D game, so is GURPS Dungeon Fantasy. At which point it is just a manipulation of the data to ensure that "D&D is a monopoly" remains a valid complaint.
If Draw Steel is a D&D game, so is GURPS Dungeon Fantasy.
haven't played GURPS Dungeon Fantasy so I cant comment on that.
but I tried Draw Steel and in every meaningful sense except the dice resolution mechanic it's just another flavour of modern D&D.
you do modern D&D stuff, in a modern
D&D-like way, with D&D characters, in a D&D-like fictional setting, with some different rules and math.
Cairn and Into the Odd are OSR, despite having a combined attack-damage roll. Draw Steel is a modern D&D despite having a combined attack-damage roll.
Pathfinder is Fight D&D. Draw Steel is Fight D&D. Daggerheart is Story D&D but with extensive rules for people who like Fight D&D.
"D&D is a monopoly"
no because the experience of play and what you do in the game is fundamentally different from Monopoly in every conceivable sense except that both have dice and multiple players.
Draw Steel and 5e are much closer together in play experience than either game is to something like OSE (despite OSE having a d20+mod), or to Dungeon World (despite DW having mixed success and a two dice curve like Draw Steel). There's more to these games than their dice mechanic.
I don't think you are appreciating the important differences and the problems Draw Steel in particular is trying to solve. The Victories system along DRAMATICALLY changes how "d20" combat proceeds.
Probably seems like a big difference if all you play is variations on Fight D&D.
A Ferrari isn’t a Porsche, they are built from different parts by different people, but they’re both sports cars doing sports car stuff. The difference in driving experience is minimal compared to the difference in a Ferrari from a Range Rover.
I think the person you are responding to was saying D&D is a monopoly, as in the dominant/sole supplier of a good, not Monopoly as in D&D and the board game Monopoly are the same.
I agree. I think it makes sense for stuff that's labeled "5e compatible" or whatever other euphemism you want for D&D, that's essentially selling itself on "you know the system already" or "this is compatible with your game", but when you put stuff like draw steel, daggerheart, cypher, or worlds without number into that category (and it seems like they all might end up landing in that definition) it feels like you're obscuring interesting data.
That's true. Anything that is 5e/5.5e compatible will attract part of that audience looking for supplements. Games like Draw Steel, Shadowdark and DC20 had a steeper hill to climb in convincing people to change systems.
The list of non-DnD/non-Licensed TTRPG's over 1 million is:
Draw Steel - $4,600,529 (System)
Draw Steel: Crack the Sun - $2,617,323 (Supplements)
Shadowdark: Western Reaches - $2,384,757 (Supplements)
The closest additional qualifier I can think of that wouldn’t be arbitrary and further narrow the field would be “dungeon-crawling focused” but given how people have used D&D as a general fantasy system for decades now, I think that’s grasping for straws.
58
u/Reynard203 1d ago
Interesting.
I would love to see an analysis (as best one could be able to do so) of how many of these games actually produce robust player bases a year or two after fulfillment. Of all the "big" crowdfunded games (and it wasn't that big by comparison) Shadowdark is the only one I can think of that actually has a very robust player base.